The moment of truth for cars that talk to each other: wireless vehicle networks could make driving safer and more efficient, but the cost of deployment will be significant.
[Reproduced from MIT Technology Review] The Internet of Cars Is Approaching a Crossroads [By Will Knight | 06.27.13] The phrase “vehicle-to-vehicle communications” might currently mean little more than a few choice words hurled through an open car window. In a few years, however, it could be synonymous with technology that makes driving safer, less polluting, and certainly less antagonistic. This week, officials from the U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington, DC, will see the technology in action, in a demonstration organized by experts from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute and various communications equipment and car manufacturers. The demos will showcase a way for vehicles to exchange information—including their position, direction, and speed—with other similarly equipped vehicles as well as with roadside equipment such as traffic lights and tollbooths. The result is a peer-to-peer communication network capable of alerting drivers and onboard computers about what’s happening on the road—and what may be about to happen next. The technology, which could have significant safety benefits, is at something of a crossroads. Toward the end of the year, the Department of Transportation will decide whether to mandate that future cars include some sort of vehicle-to-vehicle communication technology or leave it to the market. The largest ever real-world vehicle-to-vehicle experiment—involving 2,800 vehicles, many belonging to ordinary drivers who have volunteered to take part—has been under way in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the past 10 months. Each vehicle in the project, including 60 trucks, 85 transit buses, and some motorcycles and bicycles, is fitted with a transmitter and receiver capable of sending and receiving signals over a distance of 300 meters. The equipment uses a specialized version of Wi-Fi, called 802.11p, which operates in a dedicated radio frequency in the 5.9-gigahertz range and was designed specifically for communications from moving vehicles. The low power trap: many factors can cause a talented executive to be ignored or sidelined within an organization [Reproduced from MIT Sloan Management Review] How to Overcome a Power Deficit [By Jean-Louis Barsoux and Cyril Bouquet | 06.18.13] At some point in their careers, many executives find themselves short of the power and influence they need to get their jobs done effectively. Fortunately, these problems can usually be remedied. Many years later, after a successful career as chairman and CEO of the biotechnology giant Amgen Inc., Kevin Sharer would look back on a period earlier in his career when he had a hard time getting all his ideas implemented. Although a talented manager, Sharer had made a common mistake when he started as executive vice president of marketing at telecommunications company MCI: He could see something that needed changing and set right in to try to change it. He had decided within his first month that the company should be organized by markets rather than geography, and he shared his views with anyone who would listen. Before long, however, Sharer discovered that despite his impressive new title, his recommendations went unheeded. The division presidents, on whom he relied to implement his sales and marketing initiatives, came to see him “as an adversary who was trying to reorganize their jobs,” and Sharer spent a frustrating three years at MCI before moving on. Ironically, most of the changes he proposed were eventually implemented. “The fact that I was right didn’t matter,” Sharer later conceded. “What I hadn’t done was build sufficient internal credibility.” In his experience at MCI, Sharer had unwittingly stepped into the role of what we call a “power-deficient executive” (PDE for short) — a role that most executives, even highly successful ones, will experience at some point in their careers. Power deficits are common and pose a classic challenge for even the most gifted managers. The good news is that we have learned, in the course of our research and coaching of 179 executives who had experienced a power deficit at some point in their careers, that power deficits can almost always be overcome by following one of two basic strategies. About the Research: Our research was conducted over a two-year period in cooperation with participants entering IMD’s Program for Executive Development (co-directed by Cyril Bouquet) in 2012-2103. This eight-week program is designed to help midcareer executives transition into a general manager’s position. The participants (sample size =179) came from 46 countries, representing 45 industries and 81 organizations in total. Who’s at Risk Anyone can experience being stuck with a power deficit. Many factors can leave executives ignored or sidelined. Demographics (race, ethnicity, gender or age) can contribute to the PDE’s predicament. So can inexperience, poor reputation, personality, background, training or outlook. It can happen to people with high potential, and it can happen to executives who are already high performers. You may be an indispensable part of your team but a PDE within the larger organization because you’re stuck in a specialist position or a peripheral unit. You may be a star in one organization and find yourself seated at the “kiddie table” at your next company. Or you may even find yourself catapulted into the top job but lack sufficient credibility to lead effectively. For Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, age was the big issue when he took over as CEO of Lego Group: “My big disadvantage in taking on the job, being 34 years old, was I couldn’t showcase the relevant experience.… But what that meant was that I could see some of the things that had been wrong in the company, and that many of the employees knew were wrong.” On the bright side, Knudstorp’s experience is not entirely atypical. Often, a power deficit is not just a major challenge; played right, it may also represent a major opportunity. The Low-Power Trap Our research indicates that the typical PDE lacks one or more of the following power sources: legitimacy, critical resources or networks. The high level of interaction between these three sources of power means that a shortage in one can easily produce shortages in the other two. For example, the executive with more legitimacy in the eyes of the boss can expect to receive preferential assignments and more material support, as well as additional mentoring, supervision and feedback — key resources that all tend to enhance productivity and creativity. Just as important, the boss’s support affects how other people perceive the executive. Managers granted more decision-making authority are often perceived as more decisive and persuasive; those who receive visible sponsorship are taken more seriously; those privy to strategic discussions are seen as more informed and insightful; and those given wide-ranging assignments have more chances to expand their networks, access key information and advance their careers. Merely possessing these key resources sends a signal of credibility to others, and these favorable impressions can create a virtuous cycle in which high visibility and influence further boost the individual’s standing with the boss. The exact opposite is true for PDEs. Executives who lack legitimacy with the boss find it harder to be heard. They struggle to marshal the information and resources needed to perform at a high level and make favorable impressions. They may have problems connecting with influential people, thanks to their lack of resources and weak reputations. Because of their impoverished networks, PDEs may be the last to know, and their names may not be forwarded to the top decision makers when plum assignments are being staffed. Consequently, PDEs may not be given the challenges and exposure they need to prove their worth. Instead, they are given mundane or peripheral assignments that make it harder to disprove the boss’s low opinion of them. If they succeed despite the disadvantages, the boss may be inclined to assume that the assignment was easier than expected. How can PDEs reverse direction and build their power bases? Assuming they choose to stay with the organization, two possible strategies are available: They can either play the game or change the game. (See “Strategies for Overcoming a Power Deficiency.”) Before adopting either strategy, however, PDEs must pinpoint their core deficits. (See “How Much Influence Do You Have?”) Strategies for overcoming a power deficiency How much influence do you have ?
Overcoming a Legitimacy Deficit It’s difficult for executives to be heard when they lack legitimacy with the boss or fellow team members. Lack of legitimacy may be based on a weak or unproven track record, but it may also stem from a perceived lack of commitment, character or cultural fit. The problem with unfavorable perceptions is that they tend to become self-fulfilling. Research on leader-member exchange (LMX) indicates that the vast majority of bosses tend to treat their direct reports as part of either an “in group” or an “out group.”4 Studies suggest that, once someone has been unconsciously consigned to the “out group,” the chances of entering the “in group” are limited.5 This earlier sorting means that bosses are likely to notice and remember negative results and behaviors because this is mainly what they expect from PDEs. When bosses do notice positive outcomes or deeds, they tend to attribute these successes to situational factors or favorable circumstances, not the individual’s effort or competence. Members of the “in group” are successful. Members of the “out group” get lucky. For example, when Christine Christian was appointed CEO of Dun & Bradstreet’s Australian operation, she was practically set up to fail. The local operation had been given a back seat, performance was abysmal (the company had lost money for 10 years) and the staff was disengaged.6 To turn things around, Christine was determined to obtain a $2 million capital injection, but her bid was unsuccessful. Australia wasn’t considered strategically important, so the money was invested elsewhere. As the first Australian (and first female) CEO, she was officially in charge, but she could not secure the resources needed to develop the business. Even when she started to turn around the business, executives at headquarters attributed her success to random market dynamics. There are two ways for the PDE to gain legitimacy: by meeting or exceeding the boss’s expectations, or by redefining those expectations. |
head of product in colorado. travel 🚀 work 🌵 food 🍔 rocky mountains, tech and dogs 🐾Categories
All
|